Loved it! This was a most excellent and educational discussion. and I hope that it hits as broad a range of “hard-wired” listeners as possible as was discussed therein since all of us can benefit from what it tells us. Chris Mooney is of course, correct in his assertions regarding the difficulty of changing beliefs, but just as any army needs to make forays into the lines of and test the enemies strengths and weaknesses, so too is it necessary to maintain a strong fortress of ascertained beliefs of your own (as Mr. Lindsay maintains) from which to fire the big guns.

Europe is perhaps not a good example for evolution into secularism as most of it is projected to become irretrievably Muslim within the next 15 years or so, a matter of simple demographics. Whether those Muslims become more or less secular is a highly speculative matter but the status quo is doomed by its own democratic processes.

My scientific viewpoint:

In the absence of a continuously applied directional net force of bias in the physical universe all things ultimately become gray, null and void, a corollary of which is that just as each participating observer will witness an event as being subjective to their own biases, any non-participant’s (“outside observer”) more objective, presumably bias-free viewpoint will also ultimately witness all things as being gray, null and void as well as unimaginative and thus too dull for words. Assumptions hereto include that like-units of energy exchange exist in common Spacetime dimensions which precludes exchanges between (for example) theists and atheists if each is of the “strong” variety whereby no common ground exists upon which to battle (see above on “alternate universes”) . (Excerpted from my blog article on Biases)

Aside from those restrictions, the battle is on!

Signature

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Totally separate, and probably not worth getting into, I would also ask Chris (5) why he doesn’t follow any of the advice he’s offering here when it comes to the climate change issue?

That is an excellent point and one that is definitely worth getting into, as it demonstrates the blatent hypocrisy of Chris’ position. If he really believed that a confrontational approach was counter-productive in the battle of ideas, then why does he take that exact approach on climate change? I think the real answer is that Chris knows a lot of nice liberal Christians that he doesn’t want to offend. The inconsistency couldn’t be more stark.

Totally separate, and probably not worth getting into, I would also ask Chris (5) why he doesn’t follow any of the advice he’s offering here when it comes to the climate change issue?

That is an excellent point and one that is definitely worth getting into, as it demonstrates the blatent hypocrisy of Chris’ position. If he really believed that a confrontational approach was counter-productive in the battle of ideas, then why does he take that exact approach on climate change? I think the real answer is that Chris knows a lot of nice liberal Christians that he doesn’t want to offend. The inconsistency couldn’t be more stark.

Well, I (perhaps unfairly) assumed the conversation would just descend into Chris calling me “philosophically naive” because I’m comparing religion to politics, and me calling Chris inconsistent and biased.

Frankly, I think the truth lies pretty close to your speculation: that Chris just doesn’t want to offend nice liberal Christians he knows, but doesn’t mind offending conservatives (or at least the non-religious aspects of the Right in the US). As I mentioned, I think this is demonstrated best by his reversion to accommodation in the few instances that he has talked about anti-vaxxers, who tend to be liberal (save for the ‘health freedom’ and faith-healers on the Right, of course).

Another point that has been glossed over is that the accommodationist position, as asserted by Moony, consists of two different stances: (1) non-theists attempting to win the war of ideas with theists should take a non-confrontational approach, as a confrontational approach is counter-productive; and (2) accommodationists should maintain there is no conflict between science and religion.

I would agree that a non-confrontational approach may be effective in certain situations, but would strongly disagree with the second part of number (1), and as I’ve pointed out above, I don’t think Chris has provided any evidence for this in the face of real evidence to the contrary. Also, this isn’t consistent with Chris’ own stance on climate change.

I would strongly disagree with (2). Chris was forced to back off his “perfectly compatible” statement, but I don’t see value in claiming any compatibility. Chris’ position seems to be that everyone has a different view of their religion and since we can’t say that science is incompatible with them all, we have to say it is compatible with them all. Clearly, that isn’t true. We have to pick a definition of a religion to properly discuss it. Using the core documents and tenants of the religion seems reasonable in defining it, and, using that approach, there is no major religion that is even close to compatible with what science tells us. The only honest approach is to point out that science and religion are incompatible.

I do agree with him that evangelical, militant, antireligious atheism is not the right approach for a large number of our fellow citizens, and we need a diversity of approaches from a diversity of people and beliefs to be effective.

That’s not what Chris Mooney is saying. As someone else here pointed out, Chris Mooney wants us ALL to be accomodationalists and that not only is outspoken atheism ineffective, but does more harm than good.

And to your comment about antireligious atheism not being the right approach to a large number of the population, are you saying a softy soft approach is more effective for a larger majority of the population? I just want to be clear that this is a BIG grey area that is often painted as a black and white issue by the softies.

I don’t believe that everyone needs to take a soft approach, and I don’t fault the new atheists for expressing their views. I do believe that a more gentle approach would work better for most people. But each individual can express his/her own feelings about it, resulting in diverse approaches for diverse target audiences. Hopefully the result will be a more scientifically literate, less superstitious public.

I don’t believe that everyone needs to take a soft approach, and I don’t fault the new atheists for expressing their views. I do believe that a more gentle approach would work better for most people. But each individual can express his/her own feelings about it, resulting in diverse approaches for diverse target audiences. Hopefully the result will be a more scientifically literate, less superstitious public.

Fair enough. Although I tend to always look at the big picture rather than dealing with a one on one conversation. When I think of the big movements over the last century, especially the civil rights movements (gay, feminist, race) I think of minorities and the powerless speaking loud and clear, out and proud challenging the status quo. Activism works.

I think Chris Mooney, who I generally admire, was somewhat disingenuous in his discussion with Ronald Lindsay and I couldn’t help feeling that his taking of the Templeton shilling might have had something to do with it. There is little doubt that there has been over even the recent past, and certainly since 9/11 a growing disenchantment amongst mainstream European and I suggest also US opinion against religious beliefs of all kind. The difficulties that say, the Catholic Church has in recruiting to the priesthood would bear this out I think. But well before this watershed, in northern Europe a better informed and educated society was already moving in a strongly secular direction. This has only come about by challenging the often primitive beliefs of the religious which would seem to be contrary to the policy of Accomodationism proposed by Chris Mooney. I often find myself doing this in a light-hearted way with Catholics I know well by saying such things as “why does the Virgin Mary only appear in rural Europe”, what’s wrong with the USA? And furthermore, if she really wanted to make an impact, how about an Our Lady of Mecca? Many believers now accept Evolution, so how about this for a contra- accomodationist challenge: we are supposed to have an immortal soul which lives on in the after-life when we die. Lower life forms such as amoeba and even higher primates aren’t so lucky we are told. So picture the scene; evolution teaches there has been a continual transition from lower life forms to us, homo sapiens. So at some time t=0, God must have infused a specimen of homo sapiens, let’s call him Adam, with his immortal soul. But what about Adam’s Mum and Dad? They obviously weren’t so lucky. A possible but highly unlikely scenario which I think believers would struggle with because it’s so silly.

A little self-important for my tastes. (He calls himself a “Rorschach” when it comes to the accommodation thing. Um, Chris, I’m pretty sure any accommodationist vs. new atheist podcast put out by CFI would garner blog responses from the people involved in said debate. No?) I did find it funny that the only supporting blog post he referenced admitted in the second sentence that he (Josh Rosenau) hadn’t even listened to the podcast, making his commentary nothing more than an uninformed knee-jerk reaction to something PZ Myers wrote. Yeah, that’s what we need more of!

I don’t have a lot to say about his comments, other than pointing out that he again disparages religious people by saying they “aren’t thinking.” I’m pretty sure he doesn’t realize that this is pretty insulting, since of course he’s framing himself at the nice guy in this debate.

Coyne, very explicitly, argues that an organization like the NCSE, whose mission is improved SCIENCE education, need not take a position on religious belief at all. Yet they do: not only adopting a favorable, “accommodationist” position toward religious belief, but actively fighting against those who advocate NEUTRALITY. They seem to buy into Mooney’s explicitly political argument that it is in our “political” best interests to grow our constituency.

What’s your evidence that the NCSE is “actively fighting against those who advocate NEUTRALITY”?

I don’t have a cite on the tip of my tongue, and it is completely possible that I’m wrongly attributing Mooney’s (and other CFI authors) support of NCSE Accommodations, to NCSE itself or its representatives. I’ve read virtually everything written from Coyne, Myers, Dawkins, Mooney, Shook, etc. on the topic as it arose, and after all these years ... yes, I look back and this goes at least to 2005… it is a bit of a blur. I’ll retract the claim until it is validated (or not).

Jim, are you an NCSE Employee?

I am not now, nor have I ever been an NCSE employee. I am an NCSE supporter and I’ve published articles in _Creation/Evolution_ and _Reports of the NCSE_.

I think there have been a few statements associated with the NCSE that go too far in claiming compatibility, but they are rare and don’t seem to be part of official NCSE doctrine. In general, they simply make the claim that compatibility is *possible* between science and religion, which is true in the abstract though untrue in the case of most believers, in my experience, with a few notable exceptions.

Here we go again with the compatibility equivocation. Explain to me the “abstract” in which these two divergent “methods of knowing” can be “compatible,” and be sure to explicate the special definition or limits of “compatible.” Further, let’s be clear: Are you talking about whether the “Religious approach to acquiring “knowledge” is compatible with “the scientific approach to gaining knowledge,” or the completely wrong-headed and uninteresting (IMHO)claim that religion and science are “compatible because there are religious scientists.” I don’t care if Francis Collins can simultaneously be a Christian and a geneticist. It does not make the scientific method compatible with the Nicene Creed as sources or methods of “knowing.”

Please, use your few notable exceptions to help explain.

I didn’t equivocate between people believing mutually inconsistent propositions and propositions being consistent—I specifically called out that distinction. You’re a bit hasty with accusations, aren’t you?

I don’t think there is such a thing as “*the* ‘Religious approach to acquiring knowledge’” nor “*the* scientific approach to gaining knowledge,” nor “*the* scientific method.” There are most definitely different ways of knowing things—at the very least there are empirical and logical methods which can lead to knowledge. I’m of the opinion that there is little, if anything, in any religious doctrine that constitutes knowledge, but that doesn’t entail that it is impossible for a religious position or practice to be logically consistent with established scientific knowledge.

Can their be comity between religious and non religious people? Yes.
Can diverse people with diverse beliefs sets be on the same side of an issue that is in no way related to their religious beliefs? Yes.

We’re in agreement so far.

Are science and religion (or scientific thinking and religious thinking) compatible? Ultimately, not without making some twisted linguistic gymnastic** maneuvers that do damage to the concepts of scientific thinking.

Here, I disagree. First of all, there is more to life than propositional attitudes. Second, much of religion involves social and cultural practices and values more than doctrine. Third, “scientific thinking” is not a single unique methodology. Fourth, scientific methodology doesn’t and cannot capture all known truths (at the very least, there are truths of mathematics and logic that are at best ancillary to empirical sciences of experimental and historical varieties). Fifth, scientific practice involves values which may not themselves be the outcome of empirical research. The argument you’re making here strikes me as similar to arguing that science and art cannot be compatible without “twisted linguistic gymnastic maneuvers.” There is some overlapping subject matter, but the basic concerns of religion and science are quite different.

There are not two ways of “knowing”. There are, however, multiple ways of making decisions in life, based on what you CHOOSE to believe constitutes evidence for or against your proposed actions. Including “revealed sources of truth” in your set of valid evidence is NOT compatible with science.

I don’t think there’s necessarily a single objective way of carving up the world in order to count of how many ways there are of knowing things, but I’d say there are *at least* two ways of knowing (empirical and logical). Lots more if you count different scientific, mathematical, and logical disciplines along with prescientific sensory methods, learned recognition of social and cultural cues, testimonial transmission of information, and so on.

If it’s your suggestion that science is the only way of knowing things, I think the obvious reductio ad absurdum is that such a position implies that there was no human knowledge prior to the development of science. That strikes me as a non-starter epistemology.

I’m working my through the historical CFI podcasts and just finished listening to the 10/11/2010 episode. I find I agree completely with PZ Meyers in that debate. Further, I find no evidence in PZ’s voice to indicate that he is in the habit of puking I think there is a simple and effective resolution to the accommodationist vs “hard” atheist approach. Let’s continue to apply both! That’s what’s going to happen anyway. Free speech is a core value for both sides of the debate, so given that, there’s no way either side is going to shut up and go away… nor, IMHO should they. Mooney is quite correct that up front confrontation of core beliefs hardens them, so there is some merit, (in one on one discussions) to taking a “softer” line. On the other hand, PZ evidently can (and did in that podcast) come across as quite friendly and non-threatening at least in his tone of voice. If the content of what he says is perceived as threatening, then that is part of the problem with the religious mindset. Being threatened, especially to the point of violence… when someone is just expressing the fact that he/she does not believe what you do, is a strong indication that the person really doesn’t hold those beliefs very firmly and is threatened by the implications to their social standing of possibly being convinced that what he has been taught and what now defines his position in society is a pack of lies. At no point does PZ come out and say that religious people are inferior or bad. Dawkins and the other “hard” atheists likewise do not attack the religious folks on a personal level. “Hard” atheists merely point out the fact that the religious folk are promoting nonsensical ideas. We all agree that it is highly desirable to weaken the hold these ideas have on public policy, so it makes perfect sense to publicly point out nonsense when you encounter it be it in print, in schools (especially in schools) or in one on one conversations.

Signature

Homeopaths don’t have brains, just skull water with the memory of brains - Robin Ince of The Infinite Monkey Cage podcast
The phrase “False Prophet” is redundant. Cleanliness is next to… nothing.
I don’t have a God-shaped hole in my soul. You have a Reason-shaped hole in your head!

A tactless, bold, aggressive, verbal confrontation against their religion is just going to hurt the moderate religious, and they will resent it and be forced to defend against it. That attitude will shoot our Humanist movement in the foot, [

This assumes that the only people who are listening are one monotonous level of “moderately religious”.

(let’s just ignore your words “tactless” & “verbal confrontation” as this is just circular reasoning for the purpose of this discussion. You could also say “let’s not be rude, disgusting and punch people because that will hurt the cause” ...of course it would - but those words are not what this discussion is about, we’re talking about bold, confrontational style or strong criticism… whatever, but you can’t just assume it’s “tactless” as that is begging the question)

You only have to imagine that peoples’ religious convictions lay on a wide spectrum of conviction - from “hardly believe” to the “Nothing you can say will change my mind”.

Bold, ridiculing tactics don’t grate much with someone who hardly believes or believes a bit because he was brought up with it. Please acknowledge this possibility my accommodationist friends!

I know this because I was a luke-warm religious lamb, brought up knowing nothing else.
My conviction was never strong but any bold, aggressive tactics would just hang around in the back of my mind, forcing me to “really” question my bible studies.

In fact, it was important that criticism was strong because soft criticism was always “mowed over”. Especially by long, suspicious reasoning - that was so long, I usually just accepted it.
I had mild questions when I was young, but the minister could always weazel out of them. I literally needed bold & aggressive criticism to help me get out of this cycle.

I really wonder whether I’d be here right now, had many of my companions not scoffed at religion.
Please don’t stop scoffing & being bold & confrontational - I needed you & I am damn glad you were there.

[40:41][Lindsay]Couldn’t one argue the other way, though. That if you, in fact, emotionalize if you will. Appeal to someone’s emotions in the right way, or the right type of emotions, that it might cause them to change their beliefs.

[Mooney]Sure, but what you don’t want is the negative, defensive, “you’re attacking me” emotions. There are many other emotions, right… You want inspire, you want to motivate…

[Lindsay]How ‘bout, here’s an emotion, and this will take us back, perhaps for at least a little bit, to the whole issue of Accomodationism and the criticism of the New Atheists. I was reading a book recently called The Honor Code, and how some of our great moral revolutions came about due to people feeling ashamed of what they’d been doing. It talked about dueling, it talked about foot binding in China, it talked about slavery and how the Abolitionist movement was helped a lot by people beginning to feel ashamed about slavery. Wouldn’t it be the case, couldn’t a new atheist argue, look this new research actually supports attacking religion very harshly. Not because it will necessarily move the inter-lockature, the person I’m actually having the discussion with, but when I point out how ridiculous religious belief is, how these… the belief in miracles, the belief in the Trinty, the belief in resurrection of the dead, and how just obserd they are, it will have an effect on people who are listening to the argument, and they will feel ashamed that they actually believe in these fantasies. And because they feel that shame they may be motivated to give up their religious beliefs.

Lindsay offers to “Appeal to someone’s emotions”, but instead threatens to put them to shame, despite Mooney’s warning against, “the negative, defensive, “you’re attacking me” emotions”. Lindsay is obviously headed down a dark path in this interview. As an institution shouldn’t the CFI be trying to make friends, not trying to make divisions, doesn’t the movement need more friends and more positive actions? Mooney calls for inspiration and motivation, good call! As an institution the CFI can appeal to the people with positive messages, inspire them with constructive ideas, invite them to participate, isn’t it obviously the right course of action?

————

Lindsay writes:

“Secular Humanism: Its Scope and Its Limits”

“Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance. It is comprehensive because it touches every aspect of life, including issues of value, meaning, and identity.”

“Freedom. Fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of religion, and reproductive freedom are central to the secular humanist outlook.”

“Nonetheless, some seek a broader agenda. In particular, there are some who believe that secular humanism implies a commitment to a wide range of specific political, economic, and cultural positions. I disagree.”

“However, there is a perception that, in terms of their beliefs, secular humanists in the United States are a faction of the left wing of the Democratic Party—and this perception is sometimes fostered by secular humanists themselves.”

“Regrettably, at least since the 1980s, the Republican Party has cozied up to religion, often the more conservative brand of religion.”

“Is there a secular humanist position on the Iran conflict? The war in Afghanistan?”

“In sum, it seems to me, the wisdom of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is a subject on which reasonable secular humanists can differ.”

“Likewise, on economic issues, there is ample room for disagreement among secular humanists about regulation of financial institutions, stimulation of job growth, tax policy, Social Security reform, and so forth.”

“Clearly, because of secular humanists’ commitments to civil equality and the dignity of the individual, some of the constraints imposed on markets are supported by the vast majority of secular humanists.”

“Secular humanism does not empower its adherents to act as some sort of culture police, dictating standards to the less enlightened. It does not come with a required reading list or a mandatory course in art appreciation.”

“... it seems to me we may be a bit top-heavy in the area of graduate degrees. Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s wonderful that so many learned and accomplished individuals are attracted to secular humanism and are willing to use their skills to further our cause. But erudition can be perceived as condescension when a humanist leader begins lecturing others about what they should read, watch, or listen to or how they should spend their free time generally.”

“Secular humanism is supposed to be a “movement.” A movement limited to a subset of those who subscribe to the New York Times and enjoy reading Aristotle does not strike me as a broad-based movement or one with much potential for growth.”

bicycles: less mass, no fuel, lower speed, more beautiful, more quiet, lower cost, less wear-and-tear on the roads, more social because you can talk to people beside you, low-impact heart healthy exercise, easy parking… they are not perfect, but are they better than cars?.

“We, the undersigned, are sending the following statement to CEO Ronald Lindsay and the Board of the Center for Inquiry. We do this out of a deep concern for the present policies and future direction of the Center.”

“Members of CFI, CSH and readers of Free Inquiry have the right to insist that this conflict ,which is hurting the organizations they support, ( which are now suffering financial problems and have had serious staff upheaval) be resolved in a manner consistent with Humanist values. The ultimate test of a Humanist is not belief in abstract values, in my opinion, but interpersonal application of those values.”

“The point is this: Paul is 84, he has had a couple of serious health issues including a by-pass operation not too long ago. Although he is still intellectually and physically active he clearly has a limited time with the organizations. Why couldn’t the Board have respected this fact and practiced humanism in dealing with him? (this statement is continued in next message)”

“I sincerely hope this is a bad rumor, but it seems - from this staffer who says CFI/CSH has done enough “left wing” stuff that it is time for a Right-wing conference - that indeed CFI’s break from humanism has finally led to the connection of angry-atheism with the Right-wing!”

“In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Ron Lindsay recounts his nearly thirty year history with the organization, including his role in a landmark legal case in Alabama regarding the question of whether or not secular humanism is a religion, elaborating on how the argument has been used since by the religious right.”

bicycles: less mass, no fuel, lower speed, more beautiful, more quiet, lower cost, less wear-and-tear on the roads, more social because you can talk to people beside you, low-impact heart healthy exercise, easy parking… they are not perfect, but are they better than cars?.

Read my post above.
Appealing strongly and to emotions can only be damaging in the case where the emotional investment or level of religious conviction is very high.
What about the rest? What about those who are brought up in the church & don’t know much else?
Those people have plenty of self-supporting reasoning to get them over the soft criticism you’re intending to pander them with.

Lindsay is posing questions as an interviewer, to interpret his line of questioning as “going down a dark path” is certainly unfair.
He’s clearly just presenting an idea (partly paraphrased even) based on evidence - there’s no point trying to blame the interviewer for presenting ideas that you don’t like.